[Pacemaker] Pacemaker on Fedora 10 -- OpenAIS/Corosync version question

Andrew Beekhof beekhof at gmail.com
Thu Apr 9 15:59:09 EDT 2009

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 19:23, Ty! Boyack <ty at nrel.colostate.edu> wrote:
> Thanks Andrew!  I have been using that install page from the wiki quite a
> bit.  The difficulty I'm running into stems from rpm package dependencies.
>  With our package set in fedora openais 0.91-2 and corosync 0.92.2 get
> installed initially as dependencies to other packages.  That prevents me
> from installing openais 0.80.3-12 from the build service unless I first
> remove those packages that came from the fedora repo.  That in itself is no
> problem, but if an update is applied (yum update) without careful control
> not to update openais, the package gets overwritten with the 0.91-2 version
> (which will install corosync as a dependency).  For now I've added an
> 'exclude=openais' statement to the fedora repo file, but I'm concerned about
> this for the long term, especially if I need to run applications that depend
> on corosync at the same time (CLVM comes immediately to mind).
> So I guess I would like to know what you see in your crystal ball.  Do you
> think you will continue to advocate openais without corosync, or if corosync
> becomes less twitchy do you expect to advocate that?  If Pacemaker is
> happier without corosync, would it be wise to rename one of the OpenAIS
> packages (the one that requires corosync or the one that is stand alone) to
> prevent unintentional conflicts from multiple repos?

Thats not really something I control really... the package is what it is.

However, now that the upstream versions of corosync/openais included
by the distros are starting to support Pacemaker out of the box, its
probably a good idea to build against the version they ship.

> Do you think it is
> feasible to run openais 0.80 at the same time as corosync (with or without
> the openais service engine)?

Backing up a moment... how many nodes do you plan on running?
Because the twitchiness was mostly only a problem one you started
using 6 or more nodes.

The path of least resistance for you might be an rpm --rebuild of the
pacemaker src.rpm so that it uses the version of corosync that comes
with fedora 10.
Then you just need to submit bugs for the corosync bugs you find :-)

The other item to consider is that Pacemaker will likely be an
official part of Fedora "soon".

> I know this is not your problem to fix, I just wanted to share with you some
> experiences from the field and gain your insights.  We are as concerned with
> server maintenance as we are with getting the initial install working, and
> I'm just looking for good ways to make this a sustainable solution.  I see
> Pacemaker as a key and critical component to nearly every system we plan to
> deploy in the next 5-10 years, and I'm really excited to see it become even
> more stable and ubiquitous on a variety of distributions.
> -Ty!
> Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 20:54, Ty! Boyack <ty at nrel.colostate.edu> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to get Pacemaker running on a set of Fedora 10 boxes, but
>>> I've seen some conflicting/confusing information regarding the state of
>>> Pacemaker and how it integrates with OpenAIS/Corosync.
>>> It looks like the ha-clustering repo (at Suse) uses the pre-Corosync
>>> version of OpenAIS (0.80.3-12),
>> I need to update those packages - 0.80.4 (IIRC) now includes all the
>> patches Pacemaker needs to run.
>>> and the Fedora 10 repos have OpenAIS
>>> version 0.91-2 with corosync version 0.92.2.
>>> Is there a recommended way of installing this using these available
>>> rpms?  I can see a couple of different stacks:
>> Personally I prefer openais (0.80) + pacemaker.
>> The last time I used corosync, the membership data it supplied was a
>> bit "twitchy"
>> Having said that, I do plan to retest how corosync behaves over the
>> coming weeks.
>>> Pacemaker+OpenAIS-0.80.3-12
>>> Pacemaker+OpenAIS-0.91-2+Corosync-0.92.2
>>> Pacemaker+Corosync-0.92.2
>>> Do I understand correctly that eventually Pacemaker will be called
>>> directly as a service engine from Corosync, without needing the API that
>>> the "new" OpenAIS layer provides?  If this is a planned change, is there
>>> a proposed timeline?
>> Pacemaker worked with Corosync before it was even announced, in fact
>> thats what it was originally ported to.
>> We use the same design for both (a .lcrso plugin) versions.
>>> If there is compelling reason I'll get the up-to-date source trees and
>>> compile the parts, but the same question would apply of which pieces
>>> need to be installed.  I would rather stick with the rpms for management
>>> reasons if possible, though.
>> You should be able to grab the rpms from the build service, but there
>> are also instructions for building the stack at:
>>   http://clusterlabs.org/wiki/Install
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pacemaker mailing list
>> Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
>> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> --
> -===========================-
>  Ty! Boyack
>  NREL Unix Network Manager
>  ty at nrel.colostate.edu
>  (970) 491-1186
> -===========================-
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list
> Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list